Caylee/Casey Anthony Case EXCLUSIVE: New Prosecution Witness Sean Henady
Indiana– Last Wednesday, attorney for Texas Equusearch, Mark Nejame, released a few aerial images that in their opinion prove that the area where 34 month old Caylee Marie Anthony was under water at the time of the last search.
Today, in newly released discovery by the State’s Attorney’s Office, we see the aerial imagery expert responsible for that footage makes the witness list for the prosecution.
Sean Henady, tapped personally by TES founder Tim Miller, spoke exclusively today to blinkoncrime. This will be his only statement regarding the Caylee Anthony case until it’s conclusion.
In August and again in November of 2008, my services were requested by Texas Equusearch for aerial mapping in their efforts to locate missing toddler Caylee Anthony. In November only, my participation expanded to asissting with coordination of the search effort on the ground.
The complete case file, which includes information and Imagery from my office, has been provided to both the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the defense counsel for Casey Marie Anthony as mandated by the discovery process. Every Image from my office was marked “Confidential Not For Public Distribution.”
Sean Henady, President Aerial Image Corp, 3 View Technologies
Henady, together with 12 year missing persons veteran and former director of Missing and Exploited Childrens program Mandy Albritton, recently co-founded 3 View Search Services.
3 View, a non profit organization, is a premier law enforcement support vehicle to provide resources and assets to emergency services teams and to facilitate search and recovery efforts.
Currently, 3VSS resources are only available at the request of the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in a missing persons case. 3VSS is chaired by former Congressman Nick Lampson, founder of The Missing and Exploited Childrens caucus in Washington, DC. Leonard “Len” Wilson is the organizations Chief Executive Officer.
Henady and his team of imaging experts worked extensively on the Stacy Peterson , Brittanee Drexel, and Corrie Anderson cases
In 2005, missing Indianna man Charles Ricky was located exclusively by Henady’s aerial images taken over a quarry he was ultimately recovered in.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
498 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Blink, I have sent email to you and Angela and both have bounced back numerous times.
PP- I emailed you at this addy, I dont know what email your referring to, but mine has not changed. If your referring to SL, I have not had 3 seconds to stop in there even to put on shoes I whined about.
Your a valuable reader and contributor here.
B
I have sent Angela an email via the VR Hacks forum and I have registered at both SL and VR Hacks. However if anyone else can help me tomorrow (monday) navigate into where I should be on SL, I will greatly appreciate it. My name: Lula Loopen.
Also I am on an Imac G5 (almost 4 yrs old) and checked the min requirements via the graphics card: mine is Nvidia GeForce 5200 – not sure yet if it is ok for SL (not mentioned on list). Question re: Mac: how do we Macs handle left-click right-click issues? Thanks.
Blink #297
You ask, you get;) lol (ok–Maura asked;)
Yeah… except I didn’t properly explain the court’s rationale.
They went with the degree variant exception as set forth in the exceptions to the Blockburger test found in section 775.021(4)(b)
*it was truly gorgeous here yesterday–for a change–what a summer of rain–, and I was not giving up riding time, so kindly pardon my hastily written posts
In any event, the jury will be asked to determine whether Casey is guilty/not guilty of murder OR of aggravated manslaughter.
# 296-
You never know Todd, all the lawyers on TV constantly say that “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”. The burden of proof is much lower and there is no counter from the defense. I would like to read what Padilla, etal have to say in their transcripts.
Kleat, sorry I missed your earlier post, and yes, I have an older Mac. I took the SL program off & put it on an ext. HD, for now.
# 297- Geez, as dense as I am, even I recognize that the 1st degree murder and manslaughter charges are mutually exclusive. How did the judge let that slide?
# 299-Lily, thanks for making me feel better about not comprehending all these points earlier. I was prepared to sit in the corner with my dunce cap on. Well, maybe I still am. lol!
The Notice of Intent to Seek the Penalty of Death avers that “sufficient aggravating circumstances exist to justify the imposition of the Death Penalty pursuant to Florida Statute 921.141″. The Notice does not enumerate which of the aggravating factors apply, but we can fairly easily surmise that they include the following:
HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS OR CRUEL (HAC)***EXPECT THIS TO BE A KEY LYON ATTACK*** (she has her work cut out for her–keep reading)
The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
There has been much activity about the constitutionality of this aggravating factor, and aggravating factors similarly worded from other states. U. S. Supreme Court cases need to be read to fully understand the problems with this factor.
Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079, 112 S. Ct. 2926, 120 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1992).
Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 112 S. Ct. 2114, 119 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1992).
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S. Ct. 2960, 49 L. Ed. 2d 913 (1976).
(these are just the Florida cases; there are numerous additional cases from other States as well)
The issue presented in these cases is whether the words selected in the statute can withstand a vagueness challenge. The aggravating circumstance must narrow the class of cases eligible for the death penalty.
The Supreme Court of Florida thought this vagueness challenge was solved when the Standard Jury Instruction was amended to include the entire Dixon instruction the Court believed had been approved in the Proffitt case along with Florida’s present Standard Jury Instruction defining heinous, atrocious or cruel. However, a careful reading of the United States Supreme Court cases suggests the entire Dixon instruction is not acceptable. The definitions in Florida’s jury instruction have been previously struck down by the United States Supreme Court as vague. Proffitt approved only this part of the Dixon instruction: “. . . the conscienceless or pitiless crime which is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.”
The following statement in Sochor v. Florida, appears to support the
argument that the United States Supreme Court does not approve of the entire Dixon instruction:
“Sochor contends, however, that the State Supreme Court’s post Proffitt cases
have not adhered to Dixon’s limitation as stated in Proffitt, but instead evince inconsistent and over broad constructions that leave a trial court without sufficient guidance. And we may well agree with him that the Supreme Court of Florida has not confined its discussions on the matter to the Dixon language we approved in Proffitt, but has on occasion continued to invoke the entire Dixon statement, quoted above (which as “quoted above” is the present Florida Standard Jury Instruction), perhaps thinking that Proffitt approved it all.”
The Supreme Court of Florida has not interpreted Sochor to require elimination of the vague definitions in its jury instructions, but seems to believe that, as long as the whole instruction is given,it will pass constitutional muster.
The United States Supreme Court may or may not agree.
The possibility of error will be eliminated if the defense requests a particular HAC instruction and it is given. If the defense objects to the vagueness of the present Standard Instruction, the entire Standard Instruction can be given and get past the Supreme Court of Florida, or the portion approved by Proffitt (quoted above) can be given and get past the Federal Courts. But trial judges are required to read the entire standard instruction. In fact, trial judges have been directed to read fully all
applicable Standard Jury Instructions, unless a legal justification exists to modify the instruction.
Getting beyond the constitutional problems, what types of cases will and will not allow a finding of this circumstance?
The Supreme Court of Florida has held this circumstance would apply “only in torturous murders–those that evince extreme and outrageous depravity as exemplified either by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or utter indifference to or enjoyment of the suffering of another.” But the Court has upheld death sentences where the victim was conscious for merely seconds.
After Sochor, the Supreme Court of Florida has held that, for this factor to apply, the crime must be both conscienceless or pitiless and unnecessarily torturous to the victim. Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Florida has held that it is not necessary to establish the element of “intent” before finding
the HAC aggravating circumstance. It is enough if the killer is utterly indifferent to the suffering of another. This “blanket statement” is by no means accepted by all of the justices.
HAC is among “the most weighty in Florida’s sentencing calculus.” In Butler v. State, HAC was the only aggravator, and the death penalty was approved.
HAC does not apply to most instantaneous deaths, or deaths that occur fairly quickly. But See Francis v. State, 808 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2001); Nelson v. State, 748 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1999);Hall v. State, 614 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1993); Preston v. State, 607 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1992).
Fear, emotional strain, and terror of the victim during events leading up to the murder may allow an otherwise quick death to become heinous, atrocious or cruel. The Court has held that HAC can only be found in torturous murders–those that evince extreme and outrageous depravity as
exemplified either by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or the utter indifference to or enjoyment of the suffering of another.
Like other aggravating circumstances, HAC must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be left to conjecture or speculation. There must be evidence in the record that establishes the facts that justify a finding of HAC.
It is important to note that nothing done to a victim after the victim is dead or unconsciousness, including that which would otherwise qualify as heinous, atrocious or cruel, can be used to support this circumstance. (This is not universally true. At least one state, Tennessee, makes
mutilating a dead body an aggravating factor.)
*****Strangulation Deaths*****
Both the Supreme Court of Florida and the United States Supreme Court agree the “strangulation of a conscious victim involves foreknowledge of death, extreme anxiety, and fear, and this method of killing is one to which the factor of heinousness is applicable. Strangulation deaths present a prima facie case for HAC.
***What was that about the Hyoid bone?***
COLD, CALCULATED AND PREMEDITATED
The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and
premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification (CCP).
This circumstance is as confusing as it is subjective. In 1994, the Supreme Court of Florida declared the Standard Jury Instruction defining this aggravating factor to be unconstitutionally vague. The Jackson case requires a definition of terms to be read to the jury and used by the judge
in applying this factor. These definitions are now part of the Standard Jury Instructions and have been held sufficient to withstand constitutional attack.
Some definitions that may be helpful to understand this aggravator are:
“Cold” means “calm, cool reflection, and not an act prompted by emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage.”
“Calculated” means the defendant had a “careful plan or prearranged design to
commit the murder.” A careful plan or prearranged design to kill is required–not a careful plan to commit another crime and a killing also takes place.
“Premeditated” is more than that required to prove first-degree, premeditated
murder. It is “heightened premeditation.”
“Heightened premeditation” is defined as “deliberate ruthlessness.”
This definition is dangerous to use because it sounds like HAC, and the Supreme Court did not use it in the newly adopted Standard Jury
Instruction.
VICTIM LESS THAN 12 YEARS OF AGE
The victim of the capital felony was a person less than twelve years of age.
This aggravating circumstance was enacted in 1997 and is self-explanatory.
VICTIM PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE DUE TO AGE
The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.
*****
I expect a flurry of Motions from Lyon.
Motion to Declare Florida’s Death Penalty Statute Unconstitutional. (Should be DENIED. See Reynolds. v. State; Winkles v. State; Lugo v. State; Kormandy v. State; Owen v. State; Floyd v. State; San Martin v. State; Fotopoulos v. State)
Motion to Declare Section 921.141 and/or 921.141 (5)(h) and/or the standard (5)(h) instruction unconstitutional facially and as applied. (Will be DENIED at trial court level,-see Randolph v. State; Chandler v. State, but could reach the U.S. Supreme Court–as noted above. Note: This is the HAC statutory aggravating factor, and I predict that Lyon will argue that this factor, and the corresponding jury instruction, are “vague” and “overly broad”, and are “applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner”.
Motion to Declare Florida’s Capital Sentencing Statute Unconstitutional based on violations of the United States and Florida Constitutions. (Should be DENIED-see Schoenwetter v. State; Foster v. State; Brown v. State)
and many others…
*****
#130 ProvokingPoirot
Re: Second Life
Angela says to try to download Second Life. Unless you have a really dinosaur sitting on your computer desk, you should be okay to join us in the “cornfield”. Don’t worry about searching for drivers, ect. just try to download.
Lula Loopen, you are set and ready. Several have mac’s and are there to help you along. Remember the vrHacks board is to help us with Second Life.
http://forum.vrhacks.net/showthread.php?p=941#post941
And all you Blink posters your ears must be red. We talk about what all you are posting.
WSH Angela says “come on back”.
Silver
If Lyon is going to file all of those motions, and it takes some time for cases to get to the supreme court level, particularly the US Supreme Court, then this trial could be YEARS away, no?
They can’t look for jurors, in the meanwhile, for a trial that has an undetermined penalty, I would assume.
Casey will be stewing in jail, for all that time.
Unless…She is going to file another motion for bond???
SECOND LIFE
PP Angela says she communicated with you last night, so hope you got the communication line open
.
Providing this Second Life is wonderful and we owe Angela and Blink a great big hug for doing it. Angela has taken time away from setting up the scene’s (such as the Ping Site) to teach us how to help her by now helping you guys get to the site and get the help you need.
Don’t give up yet! Angela has added new things to the house to listen too. That’s one of Blink’s little ways of giving you a tidbit and you have to search for the meaning
There are so many people with tech skills that have joined and can probably help. Come on over and post your problems and we will try to help you along to the good ole cornfield with a secret “keg” and a sushi bar even. As Blink says….wink
http://forum.vrhacks.net/index.php
Shelly (aka Blinker Pedalo in my “Second Life”)
Shelly,
I have been to the second life. I have tried the vrhacks. I have been waiting to be accepted. I did what you said last week when you were at the airport. I clicked on Angelas name and didn’t see anyway of emailing her to accept me.
304 WSH
Re: “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich”
I chuckle every time I hear that, but the reality is intelligent prosecutors do not bring cases before grand juries unless sufficient evidence exists to support the charges. That is why the great majority, but not all, grand jury hearings result in true bills.
From Wikipedia (because I found this so interesting last October when we were all looking up information on grand juries):
“Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. In Australia, although the State of Victoria maintains provisions for a grand jury in the Crimes Act 1958 under section 354 Indictments, it has been used on rare occasions by individuals to bring other persons to court seeking them to be committed for trial on indictable offenses. New Zealand abolished the grand jury in 1961. Canada abolished it in the 1970s. Today approximately half of the states in the U.S. employ them,[7] and only twenty-two require their use, to varying extents.[8] Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed.”
In Florida, state prosecutors are only required to use grand juries to try capital offences (offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed).
#295 (my own)
Kleat
I just read my own post from last night , and I hope that you didn’t think that I was including you as “dumb folk’, like me. Sometimes I write things , go through the thread & read them again, and they aren’t completely the thought that I was trying to relay. Just wanted to get that across to you, you are one of the brilliant ones. It just makes me dumber lol!
WSH wrote, “Geez, as dense as I am, even I recognize that the 1st degree murder and manslaughter charges are mutually exclusive. How did the judge let that slide?”
Silver’s recent posts explain that Florida is required to offer the jury a lesser charge to first degree murder. It wasn’t an error to include the aggravated manslaughter charge; it was a legal requirement. The jury must be given a choice of greated and lesser charges when rendering a verdict in a capital case.
Let’s assume Casey’s jury quickly concurs that Caylee Anthony died of a homicide and that Casey Anthony, and Casey Anthony alone, committed the homicide of Caylee Anthony. The jury will then have to decide whether the homicide was first degree murder (homicide WITH premeditation and intent) OR aggravated manslaughter (homicide WITHOUT premeditation and intent).
311 post to WSH
Sorry, WSH. I just realized you were probably referring to the judge in the Lovell case, not to Judge Strickland.
The judge in the Lovell case apparently erred by failing to give the jury clear instructions. Either he was too daft to understand the contradictory verdicts or perhaps he realized the problem when the contradictory verdicts were rendered, but he was required to let the appellate court resolve the problem.
WSH, right– Ms. Lyon, IF she goes by what she states in her own paper, she will file a motion for every single thing that there is a good-faith basis for filing, especially the one she will apparently file next, which goes after the very DP charge, itself. (But then, she didn’t follow her own advice on the point of claiming LE has the ‘wrong guy’ which she says to think carefully about when there is still many months to think about making that claim public– obviously allowing that to continue via Todd Macs even in the last hearing she didn’t think this through– barn door or not, it was repeated publicly now that she is on board, and can be excused away as some rants of a non-criminal lawyer with talents not in the DP area).
What is next for September: (please revise, or repeat the list and make additions– I’m not sayin’…. this is all, just off the top of my head)
1. Expect a major motion from Ms. Lyon to have DP removed.
2. Expect a hearing on the 90 page motion filed the day before the last hearing, as mentioned by Judge Stan that would not be dealt with along with the other motions but would be done at a later date)
3. Expect the state to release the LE intereviews with the Padilla’s et al– will this be in the form of transcripts to be requested of the court? Or will it be transcript and/or taped interviews (redacted possibly)?
4. Expect a decision about the trial date for Ms. Huizinga and the state’s case of fraud. If held indefinitely as per Ms. Lyon wishes (what does it mean– murder trial over– appeals too?? that could be years, so why bother even going to trial– Ms. Lyon may hope that they just drop the case as her client has already done the time, already paid back money to the bank). (but what if the bank decides to press charges against Casey– if the state fails to get a trial date– the bank reserved the right to do that even though most of the money was paid back)
5. MORGAN n’ MORGAN and their attempts to have their own case moved forward, having lost attempts at deposing the Anthony’s owing to the Anthony’s successful avoidance repeatedly, to allow their questions to be dealt with by Judge Rodriguez. A hearing date is set in September isn’t it? Will this be once again, manipulated by George and Cindy and Brad Conway, to cause further delays because this whole case is irrelevant, because they are too stressed to appear for a depo and when they do, they refuse to answer, they refuse to come before the judge for decisions on these questions, they then hit the media again, so all their refusals were based on lies about stress. (and George storms NeJame’s press conference, then says ‘he wants the truth, wants to know what happened’– so why be so rude and create drama, if that’s the case. He’s manipulating everyone’s attention on poor George again and it’s wearing very very very thin). (ok…. I know ‘very’ isn’t necessary even once, but I didn’t use ‘absolutely’ three times!)
What else??? Can we create a list of what is to happen this month?
Anyone take bets on whether Judge Rodriguez will take hold of the Anthony leash or let them run his court yet again?
Cindee from Wisconsin please come to vrhacks board and leave your second life name and we will get you in. We cant find you in Second Life and add you to the Virtual Jurior group unless we know your second life name
http://forum.vrhacks.net/index.php
Have they released any more of the most recent discovery documents? I have one more question for ‘the experts’. I was reading LA’s testimony and he mentioned that when the police were looking through Casey’s wallet (when Cindy took out Amy’s money), the police removed an ID. I think I remember Amy getting stopped by the police around the same time that Zenaida Gonzales got a seat belt violation ticket (I think). If Casey had found Zenaida’s ID, can the prosecutors withold that evidence?
ada, wasn’t Amy, was Annie. Casey found ‘which’ Zenaida’s ID??? The Zenaida who was supposed to be the nanny, a real nanny? The Zenaida who had an office break in??? Or some other real Zenaida?
Or a fake ID in the name of ZG which then became ZFG as Casey embellished her story?
I am sorry. It was not Amy but Annie Downing who got a ticket in May 2008 and Zenaida Gonzales got one on the same day. I know a lot of underage kids that have fake IDs to get into bars. http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/01/16/zenaida-gonzalez-annie-leigh-downing%E2%80%99s-excellent-adventure-zannie-and-annie-go-to-traffic-court/
Silver, thanks for providing 297 and 305.
I have been trying, without success, to find more information about the felony murder of the young daughter of Candy Lovell. I can’t find anything about the original jury trial for this case. The only information I could find was the appellate decision you posted.
The child’s death occurred on June 3, 1998. Her name was Summer, her age is unknown to me, but she was described as Candy Lovell’s “young daughter,” so she was at least under the age of 12 and was possibly quite young.
The child died apparently from several blunt force injuries from a severe beating she received from Candy and Jamie. That made the child’s death a felony murder, which is a death penalty offence in Florida. Both Candy Lovell and Jamie Hawkins are imprisoned on LWOP sentences, but I cannot find information online to indicate whether the prosecutors in Brevard County sought the death penalty (but didn’t get it) or if they waived the option to seek death prior to the trial.
Relative to the discussion of aggravating factors, there was more than sufficient evidence of HAC in the Lovell case, the child victim was likely under the age of 12, and the child victim was killed, in part, by the abusive actions of the child’s primary caretaker in combination with the mother’s failure to seek medical help for the child until it was too late to save her.
So did the Brevard County prosecutors seek the DP since the crime was a capital offence and the aggravating circumstances in the Lovell case were arguably more easily proved with regard to the HAC nature of the offence than the currently are in the Casey Anthony case? And if they did not, why didn’t they?
In the Casey Anthony case, the ME could not tell what caused the death of Caylee Anthony. The ME could say there was no trauma to the bones and there were no drugs found in the toxicology test. The duct tape could have been placed on Caylee after death to stage a kidnapping. If Caylee died of a chloroform overdose, her death may not have been intentional nor would being knocked out with chloroform necessarily have been emotionally traumatic or physically painful to Caylee.
My point is that the HAC factor, following the Court’s opinion that “HAC can only be found in torturous murders–those that evince extreme and outrageous depravity as exemplified either by the desire to inflict a high degree of pain or the utter indifference to or enjoyment of the suffering of another” does not necessarily apply in this case. It may apply in this case, but if it does, the HAC factor is not nearly as evident here as it was in the Lovell case.
Kleat
I don’t know which Zenaida. In earlier posts it said that Annie knew a Zenaida Gonzales whose birth date was January 11, 1986. I was curious about whose ID was removed from behind Casey’s driver’s license in her wallet and could that info be withheld under Fl. Sunshine Laws.
318 Ada
Lee did not say he knew an ID had been removed by a deputy from Casey’s wallet. He said the deputy removed something white that was shaped like an ID, but Lee never saw what the white thing was that the deputy removed.
Here’s what Lee said during his July 29 OCSO interview:
Pages 24-25
“So as the officer comes back inside the house when my mother already has the wallet open and is continuing to go through the wallet that’s when my mother is showing the officer, “Look, this is my J.C. Penney card that she took from me. Look, this another card that she took from me. But as my uhm mother went to take out my sister’s identification from that little sleeved, you know that clear sleeve that you can see through, uhm, immediately the officer’s hand went in there and grabbed something that was behind that i.d. (identification). It looked to me white like the old style driver’s license, or learner’s permit or something like that. That’s what I assumed. But it struck me and I noticed it because of how quickly the officer went in and grabbed that. Uhm, I couldn’t tell you for sure what it that was, but…..”
(snipped)
“… that the officer grabbed. But if, again I can only attest to I saw one driver’s license. It’s looks a lot like the newer versions like, you know, mine. It has all those holograms and stuff on it. Uhm, aside from whatever that other more predominately white, I, I’m just calling it…”
“…an i.d. because it was shaped as one and I’m, that’s my best guess on what it would have been. But I did not see any other form of identification in there whatsoever.”
***
The SAO must hand over every item they reviewed for discovery purposes even if the SAO does not plan to use the item as evidence. For instance, during a search of the Anthony house, LE took a photo of a page from Casey’s diary but did not take the diary itself. The photo was given to the SAO. Because the photo had been handed over the SAO in relation to the case, the SAO was required to share it with Baez.
We don’t know what that white thing was that the deputy removed from Casey’s wallet. We don’t know if the deputy took it into evidence or put it back with Casey’s things after consulting with another LE about it (that’s a possibility). If it was taken into evidence, then it was shared with the SAO, and the SAO is legally required to share it with Baez.
If it was left at the Anthony house, then I would expect that the deputy mentioned the incident and item in her follow-up report. I assume the deputy was Adriana Acevedo – the only female LEO I know who was in the house that night. I have not seen the reports from the responding deputies in the discovery as yet.
I don’t think that Annie has ever stated that she knew a Zenaida, nor anyone who was a ‘nanny’ for Casey other than those friends when the baby was younger. I think this was Annie’s position in her interviews with LE and her deposition with Zenaida Gonzalez’s lawyer.
I’m guessing that if the ID gives exculpatory evidence, goes to show Casey’s ‘innocence’ or mediates her guilt, they could never withhold that information from the defense. But if Casey had stolen or fake ID in her wallet, if no one ‘planted’ it there, Casey herself would know about it and could tell her defense attorney about it. So presumably, Casey already knows what she had in her wallet, so it should not be new info to the defense.
that’s JMHO, except for the Annie knowing a Zenaida. (of course, Annie may have heard of a ZG in that moving violation, but we have no details on that yet– clearly Annie wasn’t being completely truthful with Zenaida’s lawyers IF Casey was in the car with her that day, or that there were two seatbelt violations at once. We’ll have to see how this plays out and why two tickets for the same traffic stop with only one ‘Annie’ on board).
If the state has this info, you bet it won’t come out right away– why, when Casey would know about it all if she was with Annie as in Blink’s ‘theory’, no need to tell her about it).
Maura, you have probably already looked in here (and I’m not sure it actually houses the info you are looking for) but just in case, you can get info on Jamie Hawkins’ case number 05-1998-CF-016951-BXXX-XX at this link http://webinfo4.brevardclerk.us/facts/d_charges.cfm?CaseNumber=#SearchCaseNo
Old Case Number: 98-16951-CFB
Trial motions don’t go directly to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court only accepts about 100 cases a year out of the 7,000 or so that they are asked to hear.
The US Supreme Court will only agree to hear a case for very compelling reasons, such as (from the Court’s Rule 10):
to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
to resolve an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.
Moreover, the US Supreme Court only accepts petitions for cases that have reached the end of the line in whatever appeals process is available for that particular case relative to the matter of the petition the US Supreme Court is being asked to review. For instance, in the Anthony case, Lyon could not file a petition with the US Supreme Court until Casey’s murder trial has concluded and Lyon has gone as far as she can up the ladder through the Florida Appellate Court and the Florida Supreme Court.
What Lyon is doing now, as she explained in her “life-and-death case” paper, is making a record of something she wants to happen or doesn’t want to happen by filing a motion. When she files a motion asking for X or objecting to Y, and Judge Strickland denies her request or can’t legally do anything about her objection, she has to live with it until the end of Casey’s trial. But she’s going to file the motion even if she knows nothing will change relative to the murder trial because if she doesn’t make a record of her request or objection by filing the motion now, she will not be able to argue the matter of the motion in a post-trial appeal.
PS Maura I can’t find similar info for Candy Lovell, just Jamie.
Shelly:
WSH Angela says “come on back”.
I’ll be ‘bauck’…(add Arnold accent)
I just have a number of heavy programs on my older mac, I put SL on an external hard drive for now. I just can’t leave it on, because every other program I use gets slower and wonky.
Totally out of left field, but I have been reading all of your posts and really enjoy everyones input.
My question is… I live in Orlando, and at the beginning of this case it was reported that about 2/4 days after Cindy found out Caylee was “missing” she trademarked her name. There was a lot of outrage, when the story was “authenticated” by a local news source. Since that time I haven’t seen anything else about it.
How could that be one of the first things you do when your precious child/grandchild is missing ? And if someone were to trademark her name why not her mother ? Unless you already knew that the mother was not going to be able to have any financial gain off the child in the near future.
I just wondered if the story is true. There were alot of rumors being told as facts back then also.
Anyone remember this?
Thanks, I also will be trying to get into SL tonight, wish me luck, old computer and my laptap, which is newer is suffering from a virus:-(
325 Suz
The appeal decision Silver posted gives the defendant’s name as Candy Lovell. She’s in the Florida correctional system database under the name Candy Lovall.
PS I also checked the Brevard County Clerk of Court website. The basics of the arrest dates, charges, and verdicts are available for Candy Lovell and Jamie Hawkins, but nothing else. I can’t find anything about the little girl, Summer.
Thanks Maura
(on the supreme court issue & delays in trial) I don’t know which post, but I was the one pondering the question
Thanks, Maura! Yes, there are all the Candy S. Lovall records plain as day (fingerprints and all). How odd the appeal had her name misspelled.
Hope to catch you guys after school open house later in Second Life.
What I found on Candy Lovall and her daughter Summer -
http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5D03-3786.op.html
Maura, does this help at all?
MOTHER CHARGED IN DEATH OF GIRL, 2 POLICE ARRESTED THE COCOA WOMAN, WHO IS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT, AND WERE SEARCHING FOR HER BOYFRIEND.
[METRO Edition]
Orlando Sentinel – Orlando, Fla.
Author: Lynne Bumpus-Hooper of The Sentinel Staff
Date: Jul 29, 1998
Start Page: D.3
Section: LOCAL & STATE
Text Word Count: 308
COCOA – Two-year-old Summer Lovall died June 8 after a blow to the stomach so severe it ruptured her bladder, police said Tuesday in arresting the child’s mother.
Candy Sue Lovall, 23, was arrested late Tuesday on charges of aggravated manslaughter and felony child neglect as she returned to a Terri Lane home where she was staying with a friend. Police had searched for her and her boyfriend, Jamie Denell Hawkins, most of the day, but Lovall did not report for work as a maid at a Cocoa Beach motel. She is five months pregnant, police said.
1. Miami Herald – July 30, 1998 – 5B Local
DISPATCHES
Charged: Candy Sue Lovall, 23 years old and five-months pregnant, charged in Cocoa with aggravated manslaughter after blow kills her 2-year-old daughter. Her boyfriend, Jamie D. Hawkins, sought on same charge.
Pretty creepy parallel with Casey: 22 & 23 y.o. mothers killing their 2 y.o. daughters in June.
#305 silverspnr
***What was that about the Hyoid bone?***
Yes, indeed, silverspnr. One of the most important bones in the human body that might be able to present a cause of death, was never able to be recovered from the Suburban crime site as per the autopsy reports released to the public.
Carried further away by or consumed at the hands of the elements and wildlife? Or purposely estranged from the remains, post decomposition process, by the hands of a human?
The potential ramifications are chilling.
335 Lily
Thanks, but that’s the opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal that Silver posted upthread. That was the only thing I could find via Google.
336 & 337 Suz
Yes, that’s the type of information I was looking for but I couldn’t find what you found. I tried all sorts of search strings via Google, but I could only find the appeal decision. I tried the Brevard County newspaper as well and came up empty.
Two years old. Poor baby.
What search engine did you use, Suz?
I just tried Yahoo! and found that Candy Lovall petitioned the US Supreme Court. Her case is under the subheading “Certiorari Denied,” which means the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case and will let the prior ruling stand.
08-9513
LOVALL, CANDY S. V. McNEIL, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL.
330 Pamela
People often confuse the terms copyright, trademark, and registration, and that leads to bad information being passed around.
I suspect the source of the confusion is the registration of the Caylee Anthony Trust Fund shortly after Casey’s arrest last July (the one Sun Trust Bank closed under pressure in September).
wpgmouse, well, when you consider that the hyoid bone is such a wee little thing, and is disarticulated to begin with, it’s probably not too surprising that it was not found after all those months —-especially with rain washing through after Fay and during regular Florida storms. I would have a hard time giving our cast of characters credit for even being able to plot a hyoid theft. Of the lot, I reckon only Cindy would even know what it was (I am sure casey has never hoid of a hyoid). But Caylee was so young it might have been too soft to even have broken during strangulation, IF there even was strangulation. Of course I wish they would have found it on the off chance it had a story to tell, but I don’t think it is terribly suspicious that it’s absent.
I have to say that the hyoid hype was manufactured by our need for it to be found, in the hopes it would provide a COD for Caylee. The fact that it has not been recovered, is not suspect, imo.
B
westside-
Criminal defendants cannot just appeal whenever they wish or for any reason.
There are rules of criminal procedure and rules of appellate procedure which govern when a criminal defendant (and likewise, when the State) may file an appeal, and on what basis.
Generally, appeals can only be brought from a “final” judgment. The final judgment is the trial court’s order, which leaves nothing left to be done in the action except to follow the dictates of the judgment. See Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237, 1240 (Fla. 1987) (“A final judgment is one that determines the rights of the parties and disposes of the case on its merits, leaving nothing more to be done in the cause except execution.”); Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
If a party is dissatisfied by a certain pre-trial ruling, the party must normally wait until the trial is complete, and a final judgment has been rendered, before an appeal may be brought. This is so all objections to the trial court’s rulings will be heard at one time. (There are, of course, exceptions–see infra for more information).
Death penalty cases are appealed directly from the Circuit Court to the Florida Supreme Court by law. And while the Florida Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction to review trial court Orders that are certified by the District Court to be in need of immediate Supreme Court review and to be of great public importance, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(B)(i), or will have a great effect upon the proper administration of justice,see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2), the Florida Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of the Death Penalty, etc (see my last post-many cases cited).
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 sets forth various types of interlocutory court orders that may be appealed as of right with a notice of appeal. The list of these types of orders is set forth at Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C) et seq. Interlocutory appeals for matters not listed there must be brought pursuant to a separate rule, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100 via Petition for Certification.
While the defense can ostensibly file an appeal seeking discretionary review– or a “suggestion” with the trial court hoping for the same (re: the “great public importance” etc of the decision), that is a (losing) uphill battle, based on precedent/stare decisis.
Look for the appeals to come in full throttle IF Casey is convicted of murder (vs. manslaughter or vs. found not guilty), and IF she is sentenced to death.
For more information, generally, see the following Florida Criminal Procedure statutes governing capital post-conviction actions. (Note the sections governing when and for what purposes the STATE may/MUST appeal– in certain circumstances, the State MUST appeal before trial–see 924.071 below)
924.06 Appeal by defendant.–
(1) A defendant may appeal from:
(a) A final judgment of conviction when probation has not been granted under chapter 948, except as provided in subsection (3);
(b) An order granting probation under chapter 948;
(c) An order revoking probation under chapter 948;
(d) A sentence, on the ground that it is illegal; or
(e) A sentence imposed under s. 921.0024 of the Criminal Punishment Code which exceeds the statutory maximum penalty provided in s. 775.082 for an offense at conviction, or the consecutive statutory maximums for offenses at conviction, unless otherwise provided by law.
(2) An appeal of an order granting probation shall proceed in the same manner and have the same effect as an appeal of a judgment of conviction. An appeal of an order revoking probation may review only proceedings after the order of probation. If a judgment of conviction preceded an order of probation, the defendant may appeal from the order or the judgment or both.
(3) A defendant who pleads guilty with no express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or a defendant who pleads nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, shall have no right to a direct appeal.
924.066 Collateral relief.–
(1) Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter, a prisoner in custody may seek relief based upon claims that the judgment of conviction or sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or law of the United States or the State of Florida.
(2) Either the state or a prisoner in custody may obtain review in the next higher state court of a trial court’s adverse ruling granting or denying collateral relief. The state may obtain review of any trial court ruling that fails to enforce a procedural bar.
924.14 Stay of execution when defendant appeals.–An appeal by a defendant from either the judgment or sentence shall stay execution of the sentence, subject to the provisions of s. 924.065.
924.34 When evidence sustains only conviction of lesser offense.–When the appellate court determines that the evidence does not prove the offense for which the defendant was found guilty but does establish guilt of a lesser statutory degree of the offense or a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment and direct the trial court to enter judgment for the lesser degree of the offense or for the lesser included offense.
924.07 Appeal by state.–
(1) The state may appeal from:
(a) An order dismissing an indictment or information or any count thereof or dismissing an affidavit charging the commission of a criminal offense, the violation of probation, the violation of community control, or the violation of any supervised correctional release.
(b) An order granting a new trial.
(c) An order arresting judgment.
(d) A ruling on a question of law when the defendant is convicted and appeals from the judgment. Once the state’s cross-appeal is instituted, the appellate court shall review and rule upon the question raised by the state regardless of the disposition of the defendant’s appeal.
(e) The sentence, on the ground that it is illegal.
(f) A judgment discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus.
(g) An order adjudicating a defendant insane under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(h) All other pretrial orders, except that it may not take more than one appeal under this subsection in any case.
(i) A sentence imposed below the lowest permissible sentence established by the Criminal Punishment Code under chapter 921.
(j) A ruling granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury verdict.
(k) An order denying restitution under s. 775.089.
(l) An order or ruling suppressing evidence or evidence in limine at trial.
(m) An order withholding adjudication of guilt in violation of s. 775.08435.
(2) An appeal under this section must embody all assignments of error in each pretrial order that the state seeks to have reviewed. The state shall pay all costs of the appeal except for the defendant’s attorney’s fee.
924.071 Additional grounds for appeal by the state; time for taking; stay of cause.–
(1) The state may appeal from a pretrial order dismissing a search warrant or suppressing evidence, however obtained, or which directly and expressly conflicts with an appellate decision of a district court of appeal or of the Florida Supreme Court. The appeal must be taken before the trial.
(2) An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined. If the trial court determines that the evidence, confession, or admission that is the subject of the order would materially assist the state in proving its case against another defendant and that the prosecuting attorney intends to use it for that purpose, the court shall stay the case of that defendant until the appeal is determined. A defendant in custody whose case is stayed either automatically or by order of the court shall be released on his or her own recognizance pending the appeal if he or she is charged with a bailable offense.
924.09 When appeal to be taken by defendant.–An appeal may be taken by the defendant only within the time provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure after the judgment, sentence, or order appealed from is entered, except that an appeal by a person who has not been granted probation may be taken from both judgment and sentence within the time provided by said rules after the sentence is entered.
See also:
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, in particular-
Rule 9.140 Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases
Rule 9.142 Procedures for Review in Death Penalty Cases
******
Maura-
I don’t know the procedural history of the Lovell case other than as set forth in the appellate decision.
The fact that the appellate court had to explain the decision by way of statutory interpretation –without any citation to another case on point–tells us that this was an irregularity worthy of an opinion, at the least. I apologize if I made light of this earlier/gave the wrong impression.
*****
If any of you had the gorgeous weather we had here today, I hope you are getting out and enjoying it.
It was sunny, yet crisp here today.
I spent a few hours mountain biking and helping some other members of the local mountain biking club with some volunteer trail maintenance this evening.
My arms, legs and back are sore, but only in the best of ways.
FWIW-
I don’t mind commenting on legal issues entirely, but I am semi-retired for a reason (not just because I can afford to be thanks to almost 2 decades of 60+ hr work weeks–and a wonderful/grateful husband who is still working those kinds of hours, fighting tooth decay;) (he only gets interested in these kinds of cases if there are dental records, etc involved, and much prefers his wife’s interest in outdoor sports/fine cooking/good wine=)
I’m looking forward to flying around in my ugly grey suit on Second Life/drawing all kinds of (hopefully reasonable inferences) from the evidence of record. See you there=)
omg, I helped Maura! (I’m seriously beaming)
Maura, somehow I ended up on Google News Archives. Who knew there was such a thing? (I think I went from Brevard County to dockets.justia.com to google news to google news archives. Sheer persistence and a bit of luck.)
#342
Hello, suz. Well, just to clarify, in my response comments to one of silverspn’s #305 comments, I never ventured or implied a “cast of characters”, “plot”, or a “Hyoid theft”. IMO no one other than the person sitting in jail has been implicated thus far in handling the remains of the little child at whatever time or for whatever purpose.
I was offering 2 possible scenarios, and yes, one scenario is more plausible than the other from what we know.
And I, personally, do not know what extent, if any, Miss A.’s knowledge of the human anatomy is, just like I do not know what her specific knowledge of various external influences on the human body may or may not be.
Suz, when you mentioned her mother (I take it, because of her medical background) I remembered that some time ago, I found something most interesting, but have not been able to triple verify yet, so I won’t name names. One of Miss A.’s past boyfriends that she still had in-person contact with, has a mother who may be an M.N.
While possibly having access to a home where an M.N. lives, Miss A.
may or may not have attempted to take advantage of a situation that may have existed (with the home’s occupants innocently unaware).
Just something else to ponder.
I will try to verify further…unless…Blink?
Wow, Thanks Silver, although I’m not certain that I asked that specific question.
I just wanted to know if the trial would have been delayed if Lyon lost a motion to dismiss the death penalty, because you mentioned that you thought that she might take it to the supreme court, if not satisfied with the judges’ rulings. Maura had instructed that the trial would proceed.
I will keep a copy, to digest and contemplate, at a later time.
For me, no offense to any attorneys, it is excruciatingly dry to read in the AM. Sometimes, a plain paraphrase in normal dialogue is about all I can take.lol!
As a side note, I can also be resistant to manuals of any sort, until a problem arises. I like the “quick step up guides”, if you will.
Florida BAR clears Baez
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-baez-cleared-by-bar-090109,0,7176801.story
Right. No Hyoid bone.
Just computer searches on household weapons, neck breaking, and shovel back March 08 and the official cause of death as homicide by undetermined means; lack of damage to the bones (other than animal activity); the decomp and hair with death ring in the trunk (and total lack of blood evidence); the duck tape; the mother who never reports her as “missing”/”kidnapped” and spent 31 days row-row-rowing her boat, gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily… (while flies laid their eggs, maggots squirmed, scavenger beetles had their fill, indigenous animals pulled her apart, limb by limb–just around the corner from ScamAnthony central).
And I feel terrible if I run over an earthworm on my bike in the woods. Go figure. I guess I’m just missing that insensitivity chip.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-baez-cleared-by-bar-090109,0,7176801.story
Florida Bar clears Casey Anthony’s lawyer of ethics charges
Members of the Bar’s Grievance Committee found “insufficient evidence” that Baez did anything wrong, according to a letter from the Bar…..